Human rights roundup: Cuts cuts cuts, international human rights and QCs on film

22 October 2010 by

For your weekend reading pleasure, some of this week’s human rights news, in bite-size form. The full list of our external links can be found on the right sidebar or here.

The Inevitable Racial Effect: Counter-Terror Stop and Search Powers – Human Rights in Ireland: Rachel Heron, a PHD candidate at Durham Law School, argues that stop and search power under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has failed to yield significant results, except one: it has provided a further example of how racially neutral laws have a seemingly inevitable racial effect. Our most recent post on stop and search, which has been the subject of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights followed by a climb-down by the UK government, is here.

Case Law: Bernard Gray v UVW – privacy injunctions and anonymity – Henry Fox – Inforrm’s Blog: Mr Justice Tugendhat has returned to the subject of anonymity in privacy actions. These cases consistently test the interrelationship between Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

British foreign policy: Is Britain willing to champion human rights? – The Economist: Bagehot, the Economist’s regular opinion writer on British issues, blogs on whether, in light of its first National Security Strategy, Britain is still capable or willing to take a strong line on international human rights. I wrote on the issue recently here.  Bagehot is doubtful: “I would predict Britain is about to do its championing of human rights behind closed doors, in civilised exchanges between ministers or diplomats. “Talking, not shouting”, as various smooth-tongued western envoys used to say in Beijing, when describing their approach on Chinese human rights.” See also my post asking Do foreign policy and human rights mix?

Cuts cuts cuts: Various pieces on the impact of George Osborne’s spending review, full details of which can be found hereSpending review: justice cuts – Halsbury’s Law Exchange. Stephen Hockman QC: “In the end the justice system, whose role in a democracy is to see that the law is applied justly and fairly, is one whose expense will ultimately depend on the legislators themselves. Only if Parliament acts to simplify law and procedure will it be possible to make real savings without attacking justice itself.” Also see  Justice budget will fall to £7bn in four years – The Law Gazette and Spending review 2010: Policing and criminal justice cut by 20% – Our piece can be found here.

Video: Watch Nigel Pleming QC argue for parliamentary expenses four in the Supreme Court: When the Supreme Court opened for business just over a year ago, it was mandated by statute to make its proceedings “accessible” to the public. It has done so in various ways, including the indispensable press summaries of judgments on its website (see my article here) and school trips. One innovation which hasn’t really taken off is allowing video cameras into proceedings. This is a shame, as if broadcasters took a little time to edit footage, it would surely make interesting viewing. Or perhaps barristers aren’t as interesting as they thought they were. In any event, by clicking the link above you can see Nigel Pleming QC opening the case for the Parliamentary expense four, who are arguing that ancient rights of parliamentary privilege should protect them from being prosecuted for fiddling expenses – see our post on the Court of Appeal judgment for more background.

Bagehot: Lest ye be judged: Britain’s deep distrust of elected politicians is pushing the country’s judges into the political realm – The Economist: More Bagehot, this time on the growing public role of judges in the UK, post the Human Rights Act and repeated parliamentary sleaze scandals. It turns out that judges are amongst the last public figures that the public trusts: “The public’s yearning for judicial resolution of every crisis risks dragging judges close to the realm of politics. Lord Denning was right: someone must be trusted. If judges are not, who might take their place?“.  Joshua Rozenberg wrote about this recently too.

Control orders for terrorist suspects to stay, says counter-terrorism review – The Guardian: This is based on a leak, it would appear. The review will apparently recommend to keep that the controversial control order scheme, but the time police can hold suspects without charge should be cut to 14 days from 28. The courts have been very critical of the orders, although they have only affected around 50 people since they were introduced in 2005. See our most recent post on the issue.

And don’t forget our recent posts…

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: